Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:34:44 AM In programming, I'd argue the main group we all share is "union" and the subsets of that are "marriage" (M-F) and then gay unions (F-F and M-M). Go ahead, argue that a penis and a vagina are the same as two penises! Go ahead prove me wrong!

That is a superfluous criterion. Since marriage is a right, there is no qualification regarding gender of either party. Men are free to marry other men just as women are and vice versa. It is that straightforward.

Monday, March 17, 2014 1:04:38 PMOh please, 11+ pages of arguments of this ridiculous list? That's just crazy right there. People that buy this are only what liberals think conservatives are like. I love how the proponents of gay marriage avoid the obvious. Now, I am not saying I hate gays or they should die or anything of the sort; rather just the opposite. I treat them with love and respect. But it is crystal clear that same-sex marriage is different! Let's be simple; M-F is different than M-M which is different than F-F, Clearly M-F is at least in part for reproduction, correct? Hence, different! They should not be treated the same! That said, gays should not be treated so horribly! In programming, I'd argue the main group we all share is "union" and the subsets of that are "marriage" (M-F) and then gay unions (F-F and M-M). Go ahead, argue that a penis and a vagina are the same as two penises! Go ahead prove me wrong! Then, maybe I'll change my mind.

Monday, March 17, 2014 11:01:38 AMThis has been my most favorite post on IAB ever. We saw some fantastic debating and logical arguments. We saw some low grade trolling, some stupidity, and some epic level space-time warping density.

A sincere "Thank You" to all involved in the logic argument of pages 2ish to 8ish.

Equality for all means equality for all, even when it's hard. Civil unions do not offer the same (I am almost afraid to use this word...)rights that a marriage does. Separate but equal? Really?

I'll never accept any reason why government needs to "protect" marriage in the first place. People were getting married before state govs handed out marriage licenses. Marriage was special before then now it's politicized.

They do now, now that they've hijacked the word marriage they can claim every "marriage" should be equally treated, regardless of the religious objections of the service provider.

Again, I've never said this was a good thing. The wedding photographers and et cetera were not obligated to serve every wedding during DOMA. Nothing should oblige them to serve gay/lesbian couples.

Going into Crakr's first link, Masterpiece Cakeshop has made birthday cakes for homosexuals before. They refused to make a cake for the Wedding. Sorry, not a Wedding, Colorado doesn't have Homosexual Marriage. They refused to make a cake celebrating the relationship.

This is not the same as refusing to serve blacks.

This is more akin to refusing to serve a black supremacist group, though still not a fair comparison.

Ah, I know. Being willing to serve people that you normally would, but not agreeing with the celebration itself.

It would be like being a caterer and turning down an antebellum south themed wedding.

Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:25:34 AMCajun: No one is saying to gays can't have a consenting relationship, that they can't live together, share their income, pay taxes, etc. You missed the whole point. Marriage was special, now it's not.

"Two men, or women, seeking marriage do not have the right to make any private party host said marriage."

They do now, now that they've hijacked the word marriage they can claim every "marriage" should be equally treated, regardless of the religious objections of the service provider.

Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:04:28 AM JadesDitoyr, "You might not be pushing to force the Church into it, yet, but it is coming."Some people used to refuse service to blacks. And they didn't approve of mixed race marriages. The law was changed and the businesses cannot refuse service to them and we all said "Yeah!" But no one has yet forced a church to perform a mixed race, or mixed religion marriage service. Churches are not for-profit-businesses {as a rule} and as such are free to discriminate if they choose.

And marriage does affect taxes and such. A wife can draw on her husbands SSI, a girlfriend cannot. Marriage is important at the federal level.

Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:50:40 AMThanks for the tip on posting links, 5Cats.

I do not make a habit of quoting the bible. It is not my expertise. Just trying to make a point of the ridiculous amount of weight it holds on debates such as these. People interpret this BS as they see fit to argue the right or wrong of same sex marriage.

There, now were back on topic. I don't know what happened there for a while.

Biblical Passages are ALWAYS subject to interpretation. Do you think they were originally written in English? Heck no! There's lots of different "versions" of the Bible because there's no condenses as to what the "real version" said!

So the point is: quoting "The Bible" is a fools game! Even if you're "right"? There's other versions that say you're wrong.

Add to that the time between the events of the New Testament and the writings which describe it? It's a real mess.

Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:01:53 AM@ 5Cats, You cited Genesis 1 REVISED edition. I was referring to the Old Testament. I was still wrong though. Apparently God created Adam, who was neither male or female, plants and animals all at the same time. Then the gender was created.

Friday, March 14, 2014 11:54:13 PM11:29:51 PM @Gerry1: I agree, treatment should be uniform and fair across the States. That takes time, however, so a lot of tolerance is required until the optimal result is achieved!

11:30:35 PM @Cajun: The absolute worst thing Ronald Reagan did was initiate the "War on Drugs" with his "appointed" Drug Czar. I've said this since the day it happened. Republicans can be idiots too! But honestly? Democrats outweigh them 5:1...

11:31:56 PM @Gerry1:

Sorry, but many such "nonsense" suits have happened. The only ones which "make the news" are the most outrageous. That's the reality we find ourselves in...

There were cases involving a wedding cake baker and wedding photographer getting sued and having to pay damages. To such I certainly stand up and shout "BULL5H17!". But that's why the Civil Rights act of 1967 should be amended so that only government has to treat everyone equally.